ESCHATOLOGY (THE FINAL THINGS IN HISTORY)

One of the salient things in Christian theology is that of eschatology, i.e. the doctrine of the final things.  Another way of putting it would be the end of history as we know it.  As in its parent religion, Judaism, in Christianity there is the notion and belief that things as they are will come to an end, and that we will live in a "happily ever after."  This might correspond to the Marxian view of a "workers paradise," in which there will be a "permanent jubilee."  

How do we then account for the various eschatological perspectives that we have in the Christian community?  Each tradition claims to be based on "what the Bible says."  Having said that, what complicates this is that there are a variety of biblical hermeneutics (interpretations) which in turn lead to a variety of conclusions.  Each tradition has its own chronology as to how history as we know it will come to an end. 

The particular hermeneutic that we subscribe to will depend on the lens through which we read Scripture and the historic Christian traditions.  Some of us read them through the lens of our particular denominational theology, while others of us read them through the lens of the various branches of human knowledge, and more specifically, the social sciences.  And then there are some of us that read them through our life experiences, both individual and collective.  

Eschatology has traditionally been defined as the doctrine of the last things.  It appeared in the final chapter in the classic systems of dogmatics under the heading "de novissimis" in Latin and "ta eschata" in Greek texts.  This dogmatic locus dealt with events that still belong to the future, such as death and resurrection, the last judgment, and the end of the world, eternal damnation (hell) and eternal life (heaven). It covered the future destiny of each individual after death  as well as the final consummation of the world (Carl E. Braaten in "The Kingdom of God and Life Everlasting."  Christian Theology: An Introduction to Its Traditions and Tasks, eds. Peter C. Hodgson and Robert H. King. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994, p. 328).

In the period of Protestant scholasticism (seventeenth century), the treatment of eschatological topics became petrified in the last chapter of dogmatics.  Karl Barth spoke ironically of this approach as "lulling us to sleep" by adding at the conclusion of his Church Dogmatics a short and perfectly harmless chapter entitled 'Eschatology.' (Karl Barth, Epistle to the Romans, p. 500).

To a large extent, the mainline churches, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, permitted the sects to claim the subject of eschatology as their specialty.  Their literalistic preaching from the Bible about the end of the world has tended to inoculate the mainline bodies of Christianity against this virus of eschatology (Hal Lindsey, The Late Great Planet Earth. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973).

Eschatology is no longer confined to the concluding chapter of dogmatics as teaching about the last things.  Every theological statement is at the same time an  eschatological statement in the sense that eschatology deals with what is ultimate and to speak of God is to speak of our ultimate concern.  There is a consensus among the various schools of theology that the eschatological perspective is basic to the understanding of the Christian faith.  At the beginning of his long theological career, Barth inaugurated the eschatological renaissance in Christian theology with this striking claim: "Christianity that is not entirely and altogether eschatology has entirely and altogether nothing to do with Christ (Barth, op. cit. p. 314).

Echoing this mandate a half century later, Jurgen Moltmann insisted: The eschatological is not one element of Christianity, but the medium of Christian faith as such. Hence eschatology cannot really be only a part of Christian doctrine.  Rather, the eschatological outlook is characteristic of all Christian proclamation, of every Christian existence, and of the whole church (Jurgen Moltmann, Theology of Hope, p. 16).

One of the problems of biblical interpretation has been that of finding the thread of continuity that ties the two testaments of the Bible together.  Since the awakening of the eschatological perspective in theology, it has become evident that the people of God, from the days of Israel in the Old Testament to the period of the Church in the New, have moved forward in history in expectation of future salvation, however much this expectation was always founded on historical events in which God had intervened in the past (Braaten, op. cit., p. 330).

In the Old Testament the coming of eschatological salvation was announced in different terms, for example, the day of Yahweh, the day of judgment, the coming of the Messiah, the reign of God, and the new Jerusalem.  The eschatology of Israel underwent a continual process of change and development.  Originally Israel held a predominantly this-worldly eschatology; its vision of the promised future belonged to this world of space and time.  This is the case with early prophetic eschatology. The prophets expected a coming paradise on Earth.  The coming reign, which Yahweh was to establish for His people, enjoyed the same material reality as the promised land.  It would be a land flowing with "milk and honey."  The faithful remnant of Israel would be drawn to the holy mountain  as their dwelling place.  There is no specific hope for Heaven or life after death.  Salvation will be something to see, the earth will be extremely fruitful, people will be inwardly renewed, society will become righteous, and the nations will rest at peace.  Israel, the least of the nations, will be exalted above all the others, provided the people remain faithful to the covenant (Ibid., pp. 330-331),

The Christian revision of Jewish apocalyptic eschatology was determined by the modifications which Jesus of Nazareth effected through His preaching of the Reign of God and the double ending of His life: His death on the cross and His resurrection to a new form of being.  The central motif of Jesus's message was the coming of the reign of God.  The eschatological rule of God which Jesus preached was the power determining both the content of His message and the activities of His ministry. However, there is no consensus among contemporary theologians on how to interpret Jesus's expectation of the Reign of God.  Did Jesus think of the Reign of God as something otherworldly and future (traditional orthodoxy)?  Or did He think of it as something otherworldly and present (Karl Barth and dialectical theology)?  Or did He think of it as something this-worldly and  present (Rudolf Bultmann) and existentialist theology)?  Or as something this-worldly and future (Christian Marxism and Liberation Theology)?  Perhaps there is an element of truth in all these viewpoints, each forming one facet of a multidimensional vision of the Reign of God (Ibid., p. 332). 

What is the "correct" eschatological perspective?  A lot depends on who one asks.  My own response would be that there is no one inerrant, infallible, or perfect eschatology.  We cannot afford to treat any one particular eschatological hermeneutic as "Heaven-sent." We can spend our entire lives cherry picking Scripture verses and elements of the Christian tradition, and yet never arrive at a consensus.  The perspective that we adhere and subscribe to will in turn determine the form and shape of both our ecclesiastical form of government, and also how we carry on the ministry of Christ in the world.  As with all other branches of Christian theology, the construction of eschatology or eschatologies will be a continuous one.  One can only remain active in this world in the arenas of evangelism and social justice, and continue to pray "Even so, come Lord Jesus."

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Visiting Professor of Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

 

              HOW ARE THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE CHRISTIAN LIFE RELATED?

The Christian life has been regarded from the beginning as a following of Jesus.  Erstwhile Christians have ever been invited to step into the shoes of that first band of followers, twelve of whom He explicitly chose to be carriers of the Word-apostles.  Indeed, we may surmise that the role they play in the Gospel accounts was shaped with an eye to later followers: their humble origins; their persistent inability to get the point; the impetus desire to share in His lot, followed by their disappearance at the critical moment. And the Gospel of John reminds us how, in being called to follow Him, we are not merely being conscripted into His service, but are rather invited to become His friends (David Burrell in "The Spirit and the Christian Life."  Christian Theology: An Introduction to Its Traditions and Tasks, eds. Peter C Hodgson and Robert H. King.  Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994, p. 302)

An invitation to friendship with divinity taxes our credulity, so much that to accept it is to believe Christianly.  That seemingly impossible barrier being breached, it is a relatively small step to speak about intimacy with God-both as individuals and as a people, for this God has already acknowledged delight in being with us.  The capacity to of divinity to delight in us creates in its turn an entirely new dimension of receptivity in us.  This new person, this self-transformed, is itself a sign of the promise as he or she displays a new-found familiarity with God as well as a correlative capacity for receiving and forgiving one's fellows.  The promise of a relation between God and ourselves, which has the qualities and potentialities for friendship, opens up similarly new possibilities among ourselves (Ibid.) 

That is the character of the promise offered to humanity in Jesus.  That promise might best be called faith, if we were to understand  faith as naming a new mode of life which is a new way of relating to God (Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Faith and Belief. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979).

We are informed in Scripture that if any person be in Christ, that they are new creatures.  The role of the Holy Spirit as the agent of that renewal is alluded to in the Scriptures of the New Testament and in the traditions of the Church.  The Gospel according to John, and the letters of the Apostle Paul speak to the renewed life for those who are in Christ.  

The doctrine of the Spirit interacts with at least three established sectors of Christian theology: 1.  that of grace and sacramental life, 2. that of church and ministry, and 3. the distinctively Christian treatment of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Creator, Liberator, and Sustainer).  By reminding ourselves that at the outset how the Christian life must be conceived as a response to divine initiative, we have underscored the primary element in the doctrine of the Spirit.  Since we can hope to understand that initiative, however, only by scrutinizing the how Christians have deemed it appropriate to respond, we concern ourselves with with outlining and analyzing the characteristic forms which that response has taken since the momentous celebration of Pentecost in Jerusalem (Burrell, op. cit., p. 304).  

Are we to understand the role of the Spirit in the life of the individual Christian and in the life of the Church as a whole, an initial action which elicits the human response, or are we to understand it as the volitional response to the initiatory work of the Holy Spirit in our lives, both individually and collectively?  That would all depend on whether one's theology of the Spirit and the Christian life follows the Pauline-Agustinian-Calvinistic thread of theology in which it is believed that human nature is incapable of responding to the divine initiative because it is "dead in trespasses and sin," or whether one follows the Arminian thread of theology in which it is believed that as humans we have the ability to voluntarily embrace or reject the initiative of the Holy Spirit.  

This particular doctrine, just like all other doctrines in Christian theology, is "under construction."  Because the hermeneutics (interpretations) surrounding it vary, and because the spring or sources of hermeneutics are varied (experience, Scripture, tradition), it is subject to fluctuation.  

The theology of the Spirit and the Christian life will continued to be explored and expressed in a variety of ways in the days to come.  The impact of the various branches of human knowledge, i.e. the humanities and the natural and social sciences, will continue to inform and shape our theological perspectives, and the lens through which we interpret and understand these doctrines.  

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Reformed Church in America 

Past Visiting Professor of Theology

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

                                           THE DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS 

Given the variety of theological expressions in the Christian Church, I will say that the doctrine of the Sacraments is a very complex one.  In the Catholic and Orthodox sectors of Christianity, there are a variety of sacraments.  In Protestantism, both mainline and "non-denominational," the Sacraments are broken down into two.  What complicates biblical theology about the Sacraments, is that every sector of the Church has a different biblical hermeneutic, i.e. different interpretations and understands of "what the Bible says," about the Sacraments and about everything else.  

While in no way invalidating the notion of the Sacraments in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, I will limit myself to talking about the two Sacraments as understood and practiced in the Protestant churches.  And I will note, that even within the Protestant traditions, there are a variety of understands and perspectives as to the meaning of the Sacraments.

I begin by noting some general things about the Sacraments.  I will talk about the Sacraments in historical perspective, how we got to where we are, and where we are now.

Sacrament is the name given to certain specific rites of the Christian churches.  Of the major denominations, only the Quakers (Society of Friends) and the Salvation Army make no use of sacraments, but for all others, there are at least two, baptism and the Lord's Supper (Holy Communion).  According to both the  contemporary and Eastern Orthodox churches there are seven sacraments: baptism and the Lord's Supper (Eucharist), but also Confirmation, Penance, Extreme Unction, ordination, and matrimony.  Orthodox attaches less importance to the precise numbers than does the Roman tradition, which under assault from the Protestant Reformers, fixed the number at seven at the seventh session of the Council of Trent in 1547 (Stephen W. Sykes in "The Sacraments."  Christian Theology: An Introduction to Its Traditions and Tasks.  Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994, p. 274).

Does the number of sacraments matter?  Modern theology has come to think that the reasons that led Roman Catholics and Protestants to be so certain and vehement in their rival enumerations are far from cogent.  On the other hand, the Church developed in the course of its history a very large number of rituals, some local, some universal or nearly so; but only some these rituals is the claim made that they are sacraments.  If sacraments are a special class of ritual, there must be something by which they are distinguished.  If sacraments are a special class of ritual, there must be something by which they are distinguished.  Enumerating them is the consequence of knowing what sets these rituals apart (Ibid.).

It is no presupposed that the number of the sacraments is known for certain.  Indeed, it will be shown that one cannot a definition of "sacrament," but must, rather, attend to the history of the arguments which have raged to and fro about what a sacrament really might be.  At the same time, if any Christian rites are correctly said to be sacraments, then baptism and the Lord's Supper are the least disputable examples. Therefore, in introducing the theology of the sacraments, these two sacraments  will be used as instances (Ibid.).

Scholastic theologians of the medieval period developed a distinction, which survives in Roman Catholic handbooks of theology to this day, between sacramental theology in general, and the theology of the particular sacraments.  The essence of a sacrament could be known, and each particular sacrament would then be presented as an example of the general nature of sacrament.  If we are to speak of the sacraments at all, then it is of baptism and the Lord's Supper that we speak with most assurance.  We proceed, in other words, from the particular sacraments to the possibility that there may be a generalized sacramental theology.  It is not disputable that human beings communicate with each other by external means, rituals, signs, and symbols.  The theological question is, however, what role is to be assigned to which ritual and why.  If we can clarify the answers to these questions in respect of the two generally admitted sacraments, we will be in a better position to say how and why we can and should distinguish between the numerous incidental rituals, which have grown up in the churches over the course of time, and those privileged rites accorded the name of the sacraments (Ibid., pp. 274-275).

The Sacrament of Baptism

Baptism has been understood in the Church as a "washing" ritual, a ritual that washes away original sin and in some cases, the intrinsic sinful nature of humankind.  It was practiced in the Jewish community when Gentile converts embraced the Jewish faith, and together with the rite of circumcision, which placed them under the covenant, represented a putting away of the old pagan practices,  Those Gentiles who embraced Judaism were called "proselytes."

In the Protestant sector of Christianity, baptism has also come to be representative of the new birth in Christ, and a putting away and behind the previous sinful lifestyle.  

NOTE: Some Protestant churches, especially those of the Reformed tradition, have retained the ancient Catholic of infant baptism, though the reasons are much different than what they are in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions.  In Protestant infant baptism, the theology is that baptism replaces circumcision as a sign of the covenant with God, and that at baptism, the child together with her/his family is under the divine covenant.  

The reasons why some Protestant churches carry out their baptismal ritual by immersion rather than by sprinkling or or pouring is two-fold:

1.  One of the translations of the Greek word "baptizdo" is immersion.

2.  Since the New Testament concept of baptism is "burial with Christ," they believe that baptism by immersion best represents this burial and resurrection.

The Sacrament of Holy Communion

In Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, during the administration of the sacrament by the priest, the bread and the wine are literally converted into the body and blood of Christ.  This doctrine is called "transubstantiation."

In Protestantism, there are various views of what the Communion (or Lord's Supper) is.

1.  Memorial-The churches that practice it this way take literally the words of Jesus "Do this in remembrance of me."

2.  Consubstantiation-This is the belief that the body and blood of Christ are "under" the elements of the bread and the wine. 

3.  Presence-Those who subscribe to this view believe that Christ, through the Holy Spirit, is present, not in the elements, but in the act.  

Like all other aspects of Christian theology, the theology of the Sacraments is something that will always remain in flux rather than become a static doctrine.  The challenge for Christians is to determine how, and if, we can put aside those differences, and come to the point where we can sit together at the Lord's Table, regardless of our view of the meaning of the Sacrament.  

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Reformed Church in America 

Past Visiting Professor of Theology

Tainan Theological College/Seminary